Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 10/17/06 11:04 pm:

Hello again:

Bush would never do that, you say. But, if I were him, and I believed that drugs were the scourge of the devil, and I had the power to make that declaration (which he now does), I certainly would.

Then he doesn't have to worry about trials and stuff, of course - just drug concentration camps. It would be easy, his base would love it, and NOW there's no law stop him? None.

Shame on you. Shame on you.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 10/18/06 11:40 am:


Hello again, tom:

>>>If the drug user is an American on American soil and is not waging jihad against the US and is only breaking US drug laws then they are protected under Constitutional due process.<<<

Are you certain?

I did not read the law. I will. From my understanding (albeit from a liberal Constitutional professor from George Washington U. who said it on TV), but Bush now has the power to designate ANY group enemy combatants, IN or OUT of the country.

If I'm wrong, and I hope I am, then I'll be pleased to retract. I know you'll take a look.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 10/18/06 12:31 pm:
I did see above, ex, which is why I posted what I did. The key word is "alien." Only an "alien unlawful enemy combatant" is subject to this law. And sorry about the bad links, it's just like the government to even screw that up. Maybe this link will work.

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 10/18/06 12:34 pm:

Hello again:

>>> (1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means—

…..`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.<<<

By my reading, the president or a tribunal he establishes can determine who is an unlawful enemy combatant. I submit that under this law, the president has the authority to determine that drug users are enemy combatants, round them up and put them in concentration camps and they would have no right to challenge their incarceration.

Tell me I’m wrong. Please. I live here too.

excon

PS> Elliot. >>>Ain't gonna happen<<< Right..... In other words, trust me..........

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 10/18/06 12:38 pm:
here is a summary of the law :

An “unlawful enemy combatant” can be any alien (see [Sec.948a(3)], [Sec.948b(a)] and [Sec.948c]) determined to be one by a “competent tribunal” established by the President or the Secretary of Defense [Sec.948a(1)(ii)]. What comprises a competent tribunal is described in sections 948i through 948m.

The Act changes pre-existing law to explicitly disallow the invocation of the Geneva Convention when executing the writ of habeas corpus for detainees who are not U.S. citizens [Section 5(a)]. This provision applies to all cases pending at the time the Act is enacted, as well as to all such future cases.

If the government chooses to bring a prosecution against the detainee, a military commission is convened for this purpose. The following rules are some of those established for trying unlawful enemy combatants who are not citizens of the United States. [Sec.948b (a)] The Act does exclude these rules from being applied when trying unlawful enemy combatants who are American citizens , per sections 948b(a) and 948c.

Certain sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice are deemed inapplicable - including some relating to a speedy trial [Sec.948b (d)(1)(A)], compulsory self-incrimination [Sec.948b (d)(1)(B)], and pre-trial investigation [Sec.948b (d)(1)(C)].
A civilian defense attorney may not be used unless they have clearance to view materials classified Secret. [Sec.949c(b)(3)(D)]
Based on his findings, the judge may introduce hearsay evidence [Sec.949a(b)(2)(E)(i)], evidence obtained without a search warrant [Sec.949a(b)(2)(B)], evidence obtained when the degree of coercion is disputed [Sec.948r (d)], or classified evidence not made available to the defense [Sec.949d(f)(2)(B)].
A finding of Guilty requires only a 2/3 majority [Sec.949m(a)]
No defendant may invoke the Geneva Conventions in legal proceedings on their behalf. [Section 5(a)]
The President determines “the meaning and application” of the Geneva Conventions banning the torture of prisoners. [Sec.6 (a)(3)(A)]
The accused may be tried for the same offense a second time “with his consent” [Sec.949h(a)].
If the military commission returns a finding of Not Guilty, its convening authority is not required to take action on the findings. [Sec.950b(c)(3)]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had already determined in the Padilla case that based on the precedent of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)that without clear Congressional approval (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)), President Bush cannot detain an American citizen as an "illegal enemy combatant".

The Supreme Court was scheduled to hear the case but it was dismissed on technical filing reasons .

The Hamdi v Rumsfeld decision already stipulates the need for a habeas corpus hearing for any alleged enemy combatant foreign or otherwise who demands one .

I have no doubt that the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' will make it's way through the court system and the President's constitutional power as Commander in Chief will be further dilluted .

Clarification/Follow-up by MarySusan on 10/18/06 7:27 pm:
There aren't any to "round up" here in America as we see from the pathetic men that were "caught" so far and advertised heavily to the laughter of decent citizens. :D

FEAR FEAR FEAR

THE MANTRA OF THE BUSH NEOCON FASCISTS


Mary Susan

VOTE OUT THE FASCISTS
GET OUR DEMOCRACY BACK